Question about item camp handoffs

[Daldaen]

Originally Posted by Ele [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Isn't it easier to say if the person dies (i.e. corpsing an item) they lose the camp to anyone else that comes long or that was waiting?

Easier yes. But it doesn't solve anything.

Saying that in the short time someone is corpsing something they lose their camp, won't make those high value camps change hands anymore. Since people don't sit around waiting for them to open up for long since they tend to last for a long time til you get the drop you want.

Really... Corpsing of lore items should be nuked. That wasn't a strategy until Shadowrest zone came out and you could keep rotted corpses. No one was corpsing 10 Tranix crowns or 6 Lucan drops or 3 Hiero cloaks.

Removal of corpsing lore items would be a classic feel change not a mechanical one though.

[Walth]

Originally Posted by Ele [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Isn't it easier to say if the person dies (i.e. corpsing an item) they lose the camp to anyone else that comes long or that was waiting?

Yea, technically that is the rule as Deru just shared.

Also, if there is an item looted, technically the camper is done for a rotation according to what Deru has said.

I appreciate his post as it puts clear lines on camping items and camps. Think maybe this is the clearest of all posts relating to the issue.

[Aviann]

Originally Posted by Daldaen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Easier yes. But it doesn't solve anything.

Saying that in the short time someone is corpsing something they lose their camp, won't make those high value camps change hands anymore. Since people don't sit around waiting for them to open up for long since they tend to last for a long time til you get the drop you want.

Really... Corpsing of lore items should be nuked. That wasn't a strategy until Shadowrest zone came out and you could keep rotted corpses. No one was corpsing 10 Tranix crowns or 6 Lucan drops or 3 Hiero cloaks.

Removal of corpsing lore items would be a classic feel change not a mechanical one though.

As much as I agree with what you are trying to say, I have to stop you. Corpsing items was a thing since PoSky was first being learned, long before Shadowrest was thought of. It is classic, as much as a shitty move as it is in order to keep a camp.

[Erati]

Originally Posted by Daldaen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Removal of corpsing lore items would be a classic feel change not a mechanical one though.

+1

and I have done my fair share of corpsing......

Doesnt feel classic at all to hide your lore items on a corpse. Sorry.

[Erati]

Originally Posted by Aviann [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

As much as I agree with what you are trying to say, I have to stop you. Corpsing items was a thing since PoSky was first being learned, long before Shadowrest was thought of. It is classic, as much as a shitty move as it is in order to keep a camp.

Corpsing PoS items namely keys is because those items poof when they leave the zone

Corpsing to hold multiple instances of a Lore item on the same character really has no place in the game, nor was it ever an intended mechanic for people to have 'extra slots' for storage.

Does not feel classic at all to see corpses lined up in various zones, arranged in a deliberate way like cultivating a garden of plat.

Get rid of this pls Nilbog.

[Aviann]

Originally Posted by Erati [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Corpsing PoS items namely keys is because those items poof when they leave the zone

Corpsing to hold multiple instances of a Lore item on the same character really has no place in the game, nor was it ever an intended mechanic for people to have 'extra slots' for storage.

Does not feel classic at all to see corpses lined up in various zones, arranged in a deliberate way like cultivating a garden of plat.

Get rid of this pls Nilbog.

Regardless of what feels classic and is classic, this is and was classic, it happened in classic times. It was not invented after Velious, but it is still a dick move. Especially if people are using it as a way to get an extra roll on the item in a group. The mechanics of Sky forcing them to corpse keys showed a lot of people that they could do it with other items, and they did it.

[toolshed]

Deurbael thank you very much for responding. I know you have spoken before about the rules on P99 being convoluted for new players and hard to understand, and I think the camp handoff is a perfect example of this. Let me walk you through my interpretation (as a new player to this server) of the Play Nice policy and see how this fits with your description:

From here: http://www.project1999.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=132299

You do not necessarily need to be at the spawn point to call it 'claimed' while it is uncontested, however, if someone else wishes to contest the 'camp' you do need to return to the 'camp' and maintain a presence at or very near the spawn(s) in order to hold it

(emphasis yours)

This makes sense to me - you can go vendor in the zone and sell while still holding a camp. However, I feel like if there is a queue of people, then this camp would be considered contested. It would make sense that people would need to 'maintain a presence at or very near the spawn in order to hold it' if there is a queue. In my mind, if someone is in another zone or camping another mob, they are not in the position to maintain a presence at or near the spawns - they are camping something else. Which goes into the next point:

It should also be noted that if you camp out or leave the zone, you have forfeited a camp. You cannot hold multiple 'camps' if another group wishes to contest one that you are holding.

Leaving the camp is camping another mob. The player has chosen his camp and therefore has left his first camp. I don't see how anyone could lay claim to two separate camps at the same time. Which leads into my next point:

-Monopolizing most or all of the kills in an area.

'Monopolizing most of the kills in an area' would be camping multiple mobs+PH at the same time. This is clearly not allowed in the play-nice policys but it happens continuously at the AC OOT camp. People want to queue for AC while killing Seafurys, and under any reading of the Play Nice policy I think that this is clear that this is not allowed.

Now let's go through your post:

Originally Posted by Derubael [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Pretty clear-cut, and these exact rules have been around in one form or another for quite some time. I really need to compile a "Project 1999: Errata and other extraneous information" post to put all this stuff. For now, this will have to do:

I would call this anything but clear-cut. You do need to compile this info because the rules right now are very convoluted and contradict themselves in multiple spots. Let me show you:

Originally Posted by Derubael [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Camp holder has the right to pass the camp to whoever he would like. However, and this is very important, two things must happen in order for this to be a legitimate hand-off:

1) The player being handed the camp must be present around the time the first placeholder spawns after the last holder of the camp has gotten his or her item in hand. The person handing off the camp must stay at the spawn until the next person in line arrives, if that person is on their way to take the camp. There is a little leeway here, and we refuse to set an exact timer on how long the placeholder can be up before the camp is forfeited, but in general it should never be for more than a couple minutes or so. We tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the person coming in to take the camp in these situations as CSR staff, so waiting a bit longer will never hurt.

Makes sense, but there is no mention of any type of multiple-camp rule. What if this person that is on this 'list' isn't even on for a majority of the time? What if they're not in the same zone? How does this constitute any type of 'camp' in the definition laid down in the Play Nice policy?

Originally Posted by Derubael [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

2) The person holding the camp cannot mislead you, or change the list after telling you who is next. Something that on one ever does (and I will never understand why) is to specifically address the camp holder, asking who is next on the list or if you can be next on the list. The camp holder does need to reveal to you who the next intended camp holder is - if he doesn't, you may ask to be placed next on the list and your claim will be valid unless he reveals the next person immediately. This person cannot change after the camp holder has "revealed" the next person to take the camp to you. It is an automatic forfeit if this occurs. If you ask to be the next camp holder and are told yes, the camp holder may not later retract or change this agreement and attempt to hand the camp off to someone else - it's yours once he has gotten his item or moved on from the camp.

What if I send a tell to the camp holder and he doesn't respond? And then when the AC spawns and it's next up, all of a sudden someone from another zone comes back? I'm low down on some magical 'list' (that doesn't really exist) and now I have to fight for a camp with people that 1) aren't even online and 2) not even in the zone? This is a perfect example of the convoluted rules that exist on P99 and that are simply impossible for a new player to understand. I read these forums and have read more than most new players about this stuff and I don't understand where all these new rules keep coming from.

Originally Posted by Derubael [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Something else important to note about handing off camps - in particular, popular ones, but this applies to any camp that becomes contested. If you are solo camping, once you attain the item you were waiting for (an AC ring, for example) you are done camping that mob. The next person on the camp list had better be prepared at this point in order to come eliminate the very next placeholder spawn in order to "stake his claim" on the mob

Emphasis mine. In the bolded text, it seems like you would agree with me in that someone not physically at the camp should not be able to be next. I am very confused. If someone is bound next to the PH and goes off in some zone to XP, and then gates back, is that allowed? But then if that's a rule, you are preferentially allowing classes that gate an advantage over classes that cannot.

Originally Posted by Derubael [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You cannot work wacky corpse lines on lore items in order to grab multiple items in the same "camp session" if there are others waiting to take the camp. Please be aware that we reserve the right to apply this same ruling to any camp if we deem it necessary, including camps with multiple players.

In theory this would be nice but it happens all the time in OOT for the AC and obviously (as mentioned in this thread) happens for Tranix every day.

Yet another unwritten rule is this thing about handing it off to guild members and somehow being in a guild supersedes any type of queue or list that was made for that camp. Can you speak on this? Is this a rule? In theory the camp holder would have told the person who is asking to camp the mob next if they could be on this magical list, but what if this person doesn't respond(like most)? Please note that there is no mention of guilds in the Play Nice policy outside of "You may not operate a guild that habitually violates these rules" so I don't see how this can be a legitimate rule.

I think the rules should be more clear: if you leave a camps direct location, you lose your spot in line. This is clear, it makes sense, and it is not hard to understand.

[kenzar]

Back when I was actively inflating the price of Jboots I remember having a conversation with Rogean one Sunday morning on how I managed to sell 24 jboot MQs in a matter of a few hours the previous day. Once I explained to him that lore tag only applies to items held by a PC and that a corpse is considered a NPC all he said was "that's clever." Glad I made my millions before this attack on creative problem solving; this is just sad.

[iruinedyourday]

I think we should petition the devs to just nuke this lore not counting on corpse shit. I mean we cant all play nice together.

This is why we cant have nice things, because a small number of enough people exploit it.

Id rather everyone on the server shared camps, than me a firend or anyone be able to get rich easy while being a dick to the rest of the people that play classic EQ and make the world feel alive for me to enjoy.

#lorethecorpses #nerds #bluetopia #itsjustahobby

[indiscriminate_hater]

Too many holes in derubaels rule. What's to stop someone from having a list of 200 people that are in their guild every time they have a camp? If person 1 "can't come" ( isn't online), then move to person 2. Rinse and repeat until you find someone to come take over.

And for people saying that whoever is waiting at the camp would get to take over if no one on the list could come, often there is no way of knowing if the sought after item dropped. There's also a very low chance that the next spawn or two will have the rare mob along with the rare drop, so in reality someone on the list has an hour or so to get over there, with no one the wiser.

Someone could also exploit the technicality of having to leave the camp after the item dropped by appending themselves onto the new list (have a rotating door of two or three people). Most camps take so long to drop the rare item that whoever is sitting there waiting is very unlikely to wait until 1-3 rare items drop, so no one will realize this is happening.